Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Weak Evidentialism (E′) only requires belief in p when th... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A proponent of theistic pragmatic arguments can conform to Weak Evidentialism (E′)

    Weak Evidentialism (E′) only requires belief in p when there is a preponderance of evidence supporting p

    Natural TheologyTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Natural TheologyTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A proponent of theistic pragmatic arguments can conform to Weak Evidentialism (E...Theistic pragmatic arguments do not conflict with remaining silent when evidence...Weak Evidentialism (E′) says nothing about what one must believe when evidence i...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Natural Theology
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Strong Evidentialism (E) forbids believing p when evidence is inadequa...87%Having justification for believing that p does not entail that one act...85%Sincere avowal that p does not entail belief that p85%If p is false, the true belief that not-p can be added to the subject'...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: pragmatic-belief-god
    View source passageHide passage
    According to (E′) if the evidence is adequate, then the question is settled. If there’s a preponderance of support for p, then one is required to believe p. Where the evidence speaks, one must listen and obey. (E′) differs from (E) in part since it says nothing about those occasions in which the evidence is silent, or is inadequate. If one assigns p a probability of one-half, then there’s not a preponderance of evidence in support of p. (E′) says nothing about believing p in that case. Principle

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective